Cases 81 - 90 of 104
Peanut
as 5:2010cv00230
Plaintiff:
M&M Peanut
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1402
Securities and Exchange Commission v. International Fiduciary Corp., S.A. et al
as 1:2010mc00210
Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant:
International Fiduciary Corp., S.A., Daniel Eric Byer, Malcolm Cameron Boyd Stevenson and others
Cause Of Action: Registration of Foreign Judgment
Colonial Pacific Leasing Corporation v. M & M Trucking, Inc., et. al.
as 5:2010cv00708
Plaintiff:
Colonial Pacific Leasing Corporation
Defendant:
M & M Trucking, Inc. and Randy D. Burgess
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Littlejohn v. Mitchell
as 2:2010cv00843
Petitioner:
Billy D Littlejohn
Respondent:
M M Mitchell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Smith v. Mitchen
as 3:2010cv00420
Petitioner:
Charmaine Smith
Respondent:
M M Mitchen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Miles v. Blumberg et al
as 8:2010cv00268
Plaintiff:
Kelvin J. Miles
Defendant:
David R. Blumberg, Nancy Murphy, M. M. Williams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Thomason v. USA
as 3:2010cv00051
Petitioner:
Paul Thomason, Jr
Respondent:
M M Mitchell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Riddle v. Mitchell
as 9:2010cv00084
Petitioner:
Daniel Clayton Riddle
Respondent:
M M Mitchell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Chestnut v. Mitchell
as 9:2009cv03158
Petitioner:
Roger Chestnut
Respondent:
M M Mitchell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
WEB Management, Inc. v. Sparkle Pool Company, Inc.
as 6:2009cv01285
Plaintiff:
WEB Management, Inc.
Defendant:
Sparkle Pool Company, Inc., Garber Concrete Work, Moore's Ready Mix and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1338 Trademark Infringement
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
